|
BrianSFirstPaper 10 - 04 May 2010 - Main.BrianS
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Ready for review, comments welcome. | | | I enjoyed your article (including the titles and the punchline at the end). I understand your concerns and I still wonder whether the road that the European Union has chosen for the past fifteen years - i.e. having a data protection regulatory framework which imposes specific obligations to all controllers of third party personal data - bears relatively better results by imposing "privacy-by-design" architectures, data-minimization and purpose limitation principles. It is indeed difficult to ensure the protection of user privacy where the very business model of digital libraries depends on the exploitation and process of their users' personal data.
-- NikolaosVolanis - 24 Mar 2010 | |
>
> |
Nikolaos,
I think that the idea of imposing requirements on controllers (and collectors as well) of personal data has merit. I think it'd have to be done by regulations instead of legislation given the speed at which the game changes (but I read your comment to suggest such a model anyway, so we don't seem to disagree). Ultimately, though, I think I agree with the view that the best safeguard is going to be technological tools adopted by end-users. For example, I'm not sure I believe any regulation could sufficiently control Facebook; until something better/safer comes along (i.e. the wall-server) I think it will remain an unraveller of all things private.
-- BrianS - 04 May 2010 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrianS
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
BrianSFirstPaper 9 - 24 Mar 2010 - Main.NikolaosVolanis
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Ready for review, comments welcome. | | |
| |
>
> |
Hey Brian,
I enjoyed your article (including the titles and the punchline at the end). I understand your concerns and I still wonder whether the road that the European Union has chosen for the past fifteen years - i.e. having a data protection regulatory framework which imposes specific obligations to all controllers of third party personal data - bears relatively better results by imposing "privacy-by-design" architectures, data-minimization and purpose limitation principles. It is indeed difficult to ensure the protection of user privacy where the very business model of digital libraries depends on the exploitation and process of their users' personal data.
-- NikolaosVolanis - 24 Mar 2010 | | |
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrianS
\ No newline at end of file |
|
|
BrianSFirstPaper 7 - 16 Mar 2010 - Main.BrianS
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Not ready for review. | >
> | Ready for review, comments welcome. | | | | | | The Spark: Google Books | |
<
< | In 2002, Google took its first steps towards digitizing every book on the planet by launching the Google Books project. The venture involved partnerships with major libraries through which Google borrowed and scanned millions of books in the libraries' collections. Aside from making Google more money through advertising on display results, the goal of the Google Book Project was to create a searchable database for the full text of the world's books. Google's digital library would include books that were out of print or otherwise lost in time and, through partnerships with rightholders, the project would also include partial and full-text versions of in-print books. Readers would be able to search the full text of every book on the planet, buy individual books through Google, store them on Google, and even make notations in the digital margins for later reference. Google had built a digital Library of Alexandria. | >
> | In 2002, Google took its first steps towards digitizing every book on the planet by launching the Google Books project. The venture involved partnerships with major libraries through which Google scanned millions of books in the libraries' collections. Aside from making Google more money through advertising on display results, the goal of the Google Book Project was to create a searchable database for the full text of the world's books. Google's digital library would include books that were out of print or otherwise lost in time and, through partnerships with rightholders, the project would also include readable versions of in-print books. Readers would also be able to buy and store books through Google, and even make notations in the digital margins. Google was building a digital Library of Alexandria. | | | The Smoke: Digital Libraries | |
<
< | The possibilities for digital libraries are incredible; full-text search options and nearly limitless preservation possibilities are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface are more innovative advancements like the simplification of digital personal libraries, tools that map book contents onto real space (and vice versa), and the power to follow a passage through a timeline of works. Other tools will follow. Most importantly, however, digital libraries would dramatically increase access to information both through public terminals in libraries and through the Google Books website. And Google is not the only digital library, it justs happens to be the one getting the most press lately. Project Gutenberg, the Universal Digital Library, the World Digital Library, and Europeana are just a few other examples of digital libraries under construction. | >
> | The possibilities for digital libraries are incredible; full-text search and nearly limitless preservation are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface are innovations like the simplification of personal digital libraries and tools that map book contents onto real space (and vice versa). Other tools will follow. Most importantly, however, digital libraries dramatically increase access to information through their online interfaces and, in Google's case, through public terminals in libraries. And Google is not the only digital library. Project Gutenberg, the Universal Digital Library, the World Digital Library, and Europeana are just a few examples of other digital libraries under construction. | | | | |
<
< | As it has elsewhere, technological evolution empowers social advancement while simultaneously engendering a loss of privacy and, correlatively, a loss of autonomy. The power to follow your friends' lives is also the power for companies to datamine your social personality and preferences. So too are the mixed blessings of digital libraries. The power to monitor what you are reading, what terms you search for within books, how long you spend on each page, and what you write in the margins are simple tasks for a digital library. That information might reveal your unpopular political inclinations, your sexual orientation, your medical conditions, or a variety of other sensitive facts. What you write in the margins could be telling. How long you read that particular page could be damning. Is this power to read over your shoulder concerning? | >
> | As it has elsewhere, however, technological evolution empowers social advancement while simultaneously endangering user privacy. The power to follow your friends' lives is also the power for companies to datamine your personality and preferences. So too are the mixed blessings of digital libraries. Monitoring what you are reading, what terms you search for within books, how long you spend on each page, and what you write in the margins are simple tasks for a digital library. That information might reveal your political inclinations, your sexual orientation, your medical conditions, or a variety of other sensitive facts. Is this power to read over your shoulder concerning? | | | The Fire: Privacy Protections and You | |
<
< | The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. See, e.g., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). Similarly, the right to remain anonymous is also protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., MyIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society.”). | >
> | The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. See, e.g., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). Similarly, the right to remain anonymous is also protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., MyIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”). And the Fourth Amendment also protects individuals from unreasonable government searches and seizures. | | | | |
<
< | The Supreme Court, however, has held that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in records maintained by "third parties" such as a bank, a grocery store, a service provider, or perhaps a digital library. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Unless regulated by federal or state statute, information is just a subpoena away from the government's hands. | >
> | The Supreme Court, however, has held that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in records maintained by "third parties" such as a bank, a grocery store, a service provider, or perhaps a digital library. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Unless regulated by federal or state statute, information is just a subpoena away from the government's hands; the Fourth Amendment is no bar. | | | | |
<
< | Some courts, however, have recognized and enforced the right to read unsurveilled. In Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court rebuked a search warrant directed to a book store for purchase records. Similarly, in In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C.1998), a federal district court held that the First Amendment imposed limits on a government-sought subpoena to a book store. These cases demonstrate that there are some protections for reading information. However Tattered Cover grounded its protection in a state constitution, see id. at 1055, and such protection will vary from state to state. Without government-backed protections for users of digital libraries, and given the immense information such entities can provide, the libraries present a Hobson's Choice: do we sacrifice the power to read unsurveilled in the name of expanded information access. Or is there another way? | >
> | Some courts, however, have recognized and enforced the right to read unsurveilled under First Amendment concepts. In Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court rebuked a search warrant directed to a book store for purchase records. Similarly, in In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C.1998), a federal district court held that the First Amendment imposed limits on a government-sought subpoena to a book store. These cases demonstrate that there can be protections for reading information. However, Tattered Cover grounded its protection in a state constitution and such protection will vary from state to state. Without government-backed protections for users of digital libraries, and given the immense information such entities can provide, the libraries present a Hobson's Choice: do we sacrifice the power to read unsurveilled in the name of expanded information access? Or is there another way? | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | The Ashes: Conclusion
The present constitutional structure of privacy protections for digital libraries is insufficient. Courts like Kramerbooks had it right in upholding a First Amendment protection to read unsurveiled. Similarly, the third party doctrine embodied in Smith and Miller fails to recognize that "[w]e are becoming a society of records, and these records are not held by us, but by third parties." Daniel J. Solove, Digital Dossiers and the Dissipation of Fourth Amendment Privacy, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083, 1089 (2002). Until the Supreme Court adopts a First Amendment right of reader privacy or the third party doctrine of the Fourth Amendment changes, digital library patrons must look to statutory protection (of which there are few, see id. at 1138-51), the library's privacy policy, and state constitutions. A broader umbrella - such as a federal statutory regime or a revised approach to the First and Fourth Amendments - is desirable given the vast information digital libraries can collect and the multi-state scope of such libraries. | | | "Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads.... Fear of criticism goes with every person into the bookstall. The subtle, imponderable pressures of the orthodox lay hold. Some will fear to read what is unpopular, what the powers-that-be dislike.... [F]ear will take the place of freedom in the libraries, book stores, and homes of the land. Through the harassment of hearings, investigations, reports, and subpoenas government will hold a club over speech and over the press." United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 75-58 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring). | |
<
< | The spectre is at hand. At the moment, our privacy is adrift on bureaucratic winds. "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html][Olmstead v. U.S.]], 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The present legal structure of privacy protections is outdated and fails to recognize that "[w]e are becoming a society of records, and these records are not held by us, but by third parties." Daniel J. Solove, Digital Dossiers and the Dissipation of Fourth Amendment Privacy, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083, 1089 (2002). Digital libraries stand to offer immense social benefits but at too high a privacy cost. By strengthening disclosure requirements, such as requiring the government to obtain a warrant when seeking information held by digital libraries, the promise of the digital present can be realized without wide scale reader privacy annihilation. Until reader privacy is guarded by sturdier stuff, digital library users are at risk. | >
> | The spectre is at hand. Until reader privacy is guarded by sturdier stuff digital library users are at risk. | | | Now put down that book and back away slowly, citizen. | |
<
< | | >
> | | | |
| |
<
< | Sources to Integrate:
EFF's letter to Google. Google's brief blog response. EFF's examples of print vs. digital reading privacy. EFF's call to others to help. EFF's overview of changes requested.
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN WHAT YOU READ: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF A BOOK STORE SEARCH, 13 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 361 (2003) (arguing that the Court in Tattered Cover erred and should have given greater weight to Fourth Amendment requirements in a post 9/11 world).
DIGITAL DOSSIERS AND THE DISSIPATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083 (2002)(arguing that the third party doctrine is problematic and renders the Fourth Amendment powerless in the digital age, and concluding that federal statutes have failed to fill the resulting void of privacy protection)
PATRIOT IN THE LIBRARY: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES WHEN DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION ARE RECEIVED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE AGENTS, 30 J.C. & U.L. 363 (2004)
Lubin v. Agora, Inc., 389 Md. 1, 882 A.2d 833 (Md. 2005)
In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords, Inc., 26 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1599 (D.D.C. 1998) | >
> | Additional Sources: | | | Can the First Amendment Defeat a Grand Jury Subpoena? | |
<
< | THE PRIVATE IS PUBLIC: THE RELEVANCE OF PRIVATE ACTORS IN DEFINING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 83 (2004)
DATA RETENTION: PRIVACY, ANONYMITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ONLINE, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 191 (2003)
A TRAITOR IN OUR MIDST: IS IT YOUR TIVO?, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 167 (2004) | | | BOOKS AS WEAPONS: READING MATERIALS AND UNFAIRLY PREJUDICIAL CHARACTER EVIDENCE, 31 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 257 (2009) | |
<
< | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE AND THE CONSTITUTION OF PUBLIC SPACE: FITTING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO A WORLD THAT TRACKS IMAGE AND IDENTITY, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1349 (2004)
THE ROLE OF LIBRARIANS IN CHALLENGES TO THE USA PATRIOT ACT, 5 N.C. J. L. & Tech. 219 (2004) | | | READING FOR TERRORISM: SECTION 215 OF THE USA PATRIOT ACT AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO INFORMATION PRIVACY, 31 J. Legis. 45 (2004) | |
<
< | Knowledge itself is power. There is no knowledge that is not power. If you don't control your mind, someone else will. Knowledge is power, if you know it about the right person.
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrianS | >
> |
| | | | |
>
> | # * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrianS |
|
|
BrianSFirstPaper 6 - 15 Mar 2010 - Main.BrianS
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
Not ready for review. | | | -- By BrianS - 27 Feb 2010 | |
<
< | The Past: Google Books | >
> | The Spark: Google Books | | | | |
<
< | In 2002, Google took its first steps towards digitizing every book on the planet by launching the Google Books project. The venture involved partnerships with major libraries through which Google borrowed and scanned millions of books in the libraries' collections. Aside from making Google more money through advertising on display results, the goal of the Google Book Project was to create a searchable database for the full text of the world's books including books that were out of print and otherwise lost in time. Through partnerships with publishers, the project also made available to the public partial and full-text versions of books. Finally, Google Books also offered to consumers the option of buying books, storing them on Google Books, and making notations in the digital margins of those books for later reference. | >
> | In 2002, Google took its first steps towards digitizing every book on the planet by launching the Google Books project. The venture involved partnerships with major libraries through which Google borrowed and scanned millions of books in the libraries' collections. Aside from making Google more money through advertising on display results, the goal of the Google Book Project was to create a searchable database for the full text of the world's books. Google's digital library would include books that were out of print or otherwise lost in time and, through partnerships with rightholders, the project would also include partial and full-text versions of in-print books. Readers would be able to search the full text of every book on the planet, buy individual books through Google, store them on Google, and even make notations in the digital margins for later reference. Google had built a digital Library of Alexandria. | | | | |
<
< | The Present: Digital Library Dangers | >
> | The Smoke: Digital Libraries | | | The possibilities for digital libraries are incredible; full-text search options and nearly limitless preservation possibilities are just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface are more innovative advancements like the simplification of digital personal libraries, tools that map book contents onto real space (and vice versa), and the power to follow a passage through a timeline of works. Other tools will follow. Most importantly, however, digital libraries would dramatically increase access to information both through public terminals in libraries and through the Google Books website. And Google is not the only digital library, it justs happens to be the one getting the most press lately. Project Gutenberg, the Universal Digital Library, the World Digital Library, and Europeana are just a few other examples of digital libraries under construction. | |
<
< | As it has elsewhere, technological evolution empowers social advancement while simultaneously engendering a loss of privacy and, correlatively, a loss of autonomy. The power to follow your friends' lives is also the power for companies to datamine your social personality and preferences. The power to monitor what you are reading, how long you spend on each page, and what you write in the margins---and to disclose or even market that information to others---poses a substantial threat to privacy and autonomy. The risk that such information will be swept up by any subpoena holder is tangible and concerning. The next question, then, is how should readers respond to the dangers our new informational blessings bestow? What protections do we already have, and in the void what should we demand? | >
> | As it has elsewhere, technological evolution empowers social advancement while simultaneously engendering a loss of privacy and, correlatively, a loss of autonomy. The power to follow your friends' lives is also the power for companies to datamine your social personality and preferences. So too are the mixed blessings of digital libraries. The power to monitor what you are reading, what terms you search for within books, how long you spend on each page, and what you write in the margins are simple tasks for a digital library. That information might reveal your unpopular political inclinations, your sexual orientation, your medical conditions, or a variety of other sensitive facts. What you write in the margins could be telling. How long you read that particular page could be damning. Is this power to read over your shoulder concerning? | | | | |
<
< | The Future: Privacy Protections for Books and You | >
> | The Fire: Privacy Protections and You | | | The First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas. See, e.g., Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is now well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). Similarly, the right to remain anonymous is also protected by the First Amendment. See, e.g., MyIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995) (“Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society.”). | |
<
< | Some courts have also recognized and enforced the right to read unsurveilled. In Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court rebuked a search warrant directed to a book store for purchase records. Similarly, in In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C.1998), a federal district court held that the First Amendment imposed limits on a government-sought subpoena to a book store. | >
> | The Supreme Court, however, has held that individuals do not have an expectation of privacy in records maintained by "third parties" such as a bank, a grocery store, a service provider, or perhaps a digital library. See Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979); United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976). Unless regulated by federal or state statute, information is just a subpoena away from the government's hands. | | | | |
<
< | Conclusion | >
> | Some courts, however, have recognized and enforced the right to read unsurveilled. In Tattered Cover, Inc. v. City of Thornton, 44 P.3d 1044 (Colo. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court rebuked a search warrant directed to a book store for purchase records. Similarly, in In re Grand Jury Subpoena to Kramerbooks & Afterwords Inc., 26 Med. L. Rptr. 1599 (D.D.C.1998), a federal district court held that the First Amendment imposed limits on a government-sought subpoena to a book store. These cases demonstrate that there are some protections for reading information. However Tattered Cover grounded its protection in a state constitution, see id. at 1055, and such protection will vary from state to state. Without government-backed protections for users of digital libraries, and given the immense information such entities can provide, the libraries present a Hobson's Choice: do we sacrifice the power to read unsurveilled in the name of expanded information access. Or is there another way? | | | | |
<
< | Tattered Cover demonstrates that there are some protections for reading information. However it grounded its protection in a state constitution, see id. at 1055, and such protection will vary from state to state. Without government-backed protections for the panoply of digital libraries, and given the immense information such entities can provide, there is now online threat: book worms, and your antivirus program will not stop them. Or as Justice Douglas warned in a pre-digital time: | >
> | Conclusion | | | | |
<
< | "Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads.... Fear of criticism goes with every person into the bookstall. The subtle, imponderable pressures of the orthodox lay hold. Some will fear to read what is unpopular, what the powers-that-be dislike.... [F]ear will take the place of freedom in the libraries, book stores, and homes of the land. Through the harassment of hearings, investigations, reports, and subpoenas government will hold a club over speech and over the press." United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 75-58 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring) (emphasis added). | >
> | "Once the government can demand of a publisher the names of the purchasers of his publications, the free press as we know it disappears. Then the spectre of a government agent will look over the shoulder of everyone who reads.... Fear of criticism goes with every person into the bookstall. The subtle, imponderable pressures of the orthodox lay hold. Some will fear to read what is unpopular, what the powers-that-be dislike.... [F]ear will take the place of freedom in the libraries, book stores, and homes of the land. Through the harassment of hearings, investigations, reports, and subpoenas government will hold a club over speech and over the press." United States v. Rumely, 345 U.S. 41, 75-58 (1953) (Douglas, J., concurring). | | | | |
<
< | The spectre is at hand. At the moment, our privacy is adrift on bureaucratic winds. Until it is guarded by sturdier stuff, digital library users are at risk. | >
> | The spectre is at hand. At the moment, our privacy is adrift on bureaucratic winds. "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." [http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html][Olmstead v. U.S.]], 277 U.S. 438, 479 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The present legal structure of privacy protections is outdated and fails to recognize that "[w]e are becoming a society of records, and these records are not held by us, but by third parties." Daniel J. Solove, Digital Dossiers and the Dissipation of Fourth Amendment Privacy, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083, 1089 (2002). Digital libraries stand to offer immense social benefits but at too high a privacy cost. By strengthening disclosure requirements, such as requiring the government to obtain a warrant when seeking information held by digital libraries, the promise of the digital present can be realized without wide scale reader privacy annihilation. Until reader privacy is guarded by sturdier stuff, digital library users are at risk. | | | Now put down that book and back away slowly, citizen. | | | EFF's letter to Google. Google's brief blog response. EFF's examples of print vs. digital reading privacy. EFF's call to others to help. EFF's overview of changes requested. | |
<
< | THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN WHAT YOU READ: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF A BOOK STORE SEARCH, 13 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 361 (2003) | >
> | THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN WHAT YOU READ: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF A BOOK STORE SEARCH, 13 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rts. L. Rev. 361 (2003) (arguing that the Court in Tattered Cover erred and should have given greater weight to Fourth Amendment requirements in a post 9/11 world).
DIGITAL DOSSIERS AND THE DISSIPATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083 (2002)(arguing that the third party doctrine is problematic and renders the Fourth Amendment powerless in the digital age, and concluding that federal statutes have failed to fill the resulting void of privacy protection) | | | PATRIOT IN THE LIBRARY: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES WHEN DEMANDS FOR INFORMATION ARE RECEIVED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE AGENTS, 30 J.C. & U.L. 363 (2004) | | | THE PRIVATE IS PUBLIC: THE RELEVANCE OF PRIVATE ACTORS IN DEFINING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, 46 B.C. L. Rev. 83 (2004) | |
<
< | DIGITAL DOSSIERS AND THE DISSIPATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PRIVACY, 75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1083 (2002) | | | DATA RETENTION: PRIVACY, ANONYMITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY ONLINE, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 191 (2003)
A TRAITOR IN OUR MIDST: IS IT YOUR TIVO?, 7 Vand. J. Ent. L. & Prac. 167 (2004) |
|
| Revision 10 | r10 - 04 May 2010 - 16:21:01 - BrianS |
| Revision 9 | r9 - 24 Mar 2010 - 05:22:10 - NikolaosVolanis |
| Revision 8 | r8 - 17 Mar 2010 - 09:05:03 - BrianS |
| Revision 7 | r7 - 16 Mar 2010 - 06:50:46 - BrianS |
| Revision 6 | r6 - 15 Mar 2010 - 08:54:34 - BrianS |
| Revision 5 | r5 - 14 Mar 2010 - 12:47:49 - BrianS |
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|